Responding Post: Hate Is Not A Family Value

After reading the Same Sex Marriage FAQs article, I was reminded how little I knew about the legality behind the institution of marriage. I think I have been oblivious for all my life to the marriage benefits heterosexual couples receive upon marriage until I took Safe Zone training at Colgate this summer. Unfortunately, I think I am not the only one who is unaware of all the benefits that heterosexual couples receive that same sex couples are not granted of. Similarly to Caroline, I am really shocked and upset by all the rights same sex couples are denied of. Hospital visitation, social security benefits, health insurance, estate taxes, retirement savings, family leaves, immigration rights, nursing homes, home protection, and pension all seem like basic human rights that everyone should have regardless of who they marry. I like how this article continued to argue that civil union is not the same and not equal to the slightest degree of marriage (refer to the map to see states take on same sex marriage--only until 2003, seven years ago, did the United States allow same sex marriage with Massachusetts being the first state to do so). 


In Paula Ettelbrick's article "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?," I think she would of also agreed with the Same Sex Marriage FQAs that civil unions is not enough, but more importantly she expresses the concern that granting same sex marriage the same treatment as heterosexual couples will only ignore the fundamental problems of society: the need for acceptance and acknowledgment of variety in our society. I found Ettelbrick's argument to be very interesting. I like how she took a surface issues and went into deeper analysis of it. That makes me wonder, what other situations/issues have society simply granted something to but still ignored the core problem? I think this is the problem our society: we often solve the surface problems and not think of the other implication the situation/issue may have and then use the fact that we solve the surface problem to rationalize that the job is done. Take women's right for example, women have gained their right to vote, to work, to have access to education, etc. therefore feminism must be over. In terms of racism, we have desegregated, progress, we even have a African American President so therefore society isn't racist. There are probably many more examples. So the question then comes, to what extend has over society actually moved forward?

Andrea Vaccaro's chapter in Leading The Way tilted "Soldier in a Long White Dress" is a very inspiring piece of literature to read, especially as a first year college student; I admire her dedication to her passion and the work she has done at such a young age--juggling both academics and activism. I loved her reasoning behind why she does the things she do. Not only is it her passion and of personal concern, but she also want to be the voice for those who cannot participate or represent themselves. It is leadership like Vaccaro's that drive change.